I'll take that little tantrum as an admission that you realize that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Advertisement
by Dyakovo » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:46 pm
by Free Soviets » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:47 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Free Soviets wrote:is hunting humans legitimate? presume that the hunter intends to make full use of the human - eating the meat and making a lampshade with the skin, etc. why or why not?
humans do not equal whales. There is no moral equivalence. Whales are big sea cows, not mermaids.
by Dyakovo » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:51 pm
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:54 pm
Free Soviets wrote:is hunting humans legitimate? presume that the hunter intends to make full use of the human - eating the meat and making a lampshade with the skin, etc. why or why not?
by Sorratsin » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:55 pm
TFF wrote:Dyakovo wrote:Sorry, but they're operating under IWC approved permits. In other words, what the whalers are doing is perfectly legal... Unlike what the activists are doing...
Sorry, but IWC is the one who banned all commercial whaling in the area. Japan claims to be "researching" as they commercially harvest and kill hundreds of whales from this area under the pretense of research.
There are plenty of non-lethal means to research whales. Japan refuses to utilize these means because it prevents them from commercially killing, harvesting and profiting from the sale of their "researched" whale meat.
by Ethel mermania » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:56 pm
by Free Soviets » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:00 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Free Soviets wrote:is hunting humans legitimate? presume that the hunter intends to make full use of the human - eating the meat and making a lampshade with the skin, etc. why or why not?
No, because humans are given human rights. Humans are given human rights because humans make the rules and value other humans more highly than other non-humans.
by Free Soviets » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:03 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Free Soviets wrote:ok, are you incapable of having a discussion of ethics or do you just not want to engage in one?
according to you, incapable. I do not see the difference, morally speaking, between killing and eating a cow, and killing and eating a whale, or killing or eating a sardine. THey are all living creatures that are trying to do their best to live fufilling lives being whatever the hell they are. You have no more right to take the life of a innocent sardine than you do any other non human creature. If you see a sliding scale i would suggest you have the ethical problem, not I.
by TFF » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:06 pm
Dyakovo wrote:TFF wrote:
LOL. Let it go little boy. You were shut down the last time you tried trolling me and I'll have you shut down again. Don't start snding me "I'm sorry telegrams" again either.
I'll take that little tantrum as an admission that you realize that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
by Conserative Morality » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:09 pm
Free Soviets wrote:so when the rules allow the killing of those fuckers across the river, that is actually fine and not a poor set of rules that should be improved?
by Neutraligon » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:15 pm
by Dyakovo » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:17 pm
TFF wrote:Dyakovo wrote:I'll take that little tantrum as an admission that you realize that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
More LOL! Do yourself a favor and stay on topic without attempting to flame people. Your 345th run-tell THREAD in the moderation forum whining about someone "attacking" you again was epic fail and number 346 ain't looking good either.
by Mosasauria » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:21 pm
Neutraligon wrote:I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.
by Neutraligon » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:23 pm
Mosasauria wrote:Neutraligon wrote:I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.
Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.
by Mosasauria » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:25 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Mosasauria wrote:Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.
Then the SS have nothing to stand on. They are preventing a research organization from performing a legal action. Once they manage to prove that the intent to the whaling is commercial rather than research, then they can actually do something. Otherwise I can't see how what they are doing is legal.
by Neutraligon » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:28 pm
Mosasauria wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
Then the SS have nothing to stand on. They are preventing a research organization from performing a legal action. Once they manage to prove that the intent to the whaling is commercial rather than research, then they can actually do something. Otherwise I can't see how what they are doing is legal.
Precisely. The only reasonable action they can take is to remove the loophole in the IWC statues.
Like change it to "Research must be performed non-lethally" or something else like that.
by TFF » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:29 pm
Dyakovo wrote:TFF wrote:
More LOL! Do yourself a favor and stay on topic without attempting to flame people. Your 345th run-tell THREAD in the moderation forum whining about someone "attacking" you again was epic fail and number 346 ain't looking good either.
So you've still got nothing? Kthanxbai.
Come back when you have a clue as to what we're talking about here.
by Buffett and Colbert » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:32 pm
TFF wrote:More LOL! Sweetie, you aren't a former Sea Shepherd "fighter" nor a former member of Japans whaling industry nor a member of the ICW. By your own admission you're a kid who drives a broke down truck. State your opinion on the thread subject and refrain from telling others what thy do or don't know. mkay?
ps. nice job running and reporting me for flamebaiting you. Congrats on your 346th "Run-Tell" thread!
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by TFF » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:33 pm
Mosasauria wrote:Neutraligon wrote:I know, rather that use these ridiculous tactics, why not find actual evidence that these ships aren't doing research, document it, and then bring the case to court or have the research allowance removed. Problem solved.
Technically, the Japanese are actually doing research and taking samples. Whatever's left is sold as meat.
by Greed and Death » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:35 pm
by Ethel mermania » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:39 pm
Free Soviets wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
according to you, incapable. I do not see the difference, morally speaking, between killing and eating a cow, and killing and eating a whale, or killing or eating a sardine. THey are all living creatures that are trying to do their best to live fufilling lives being whatever the hell they are. You have no more right to take the life of a innocent sardine than you do any other non human creature. If you see a sliding scale i would suggest you have the ethical problem, not I.
you haven't offered a way to legitimately make that 'non-human' distinction, either. and as the intelligent alien example shows, there wouldn't appear to be one. or, if you don't like that one, how about if we clone neandertals? erectus? habilis? australopithicus? at what point in human ancestry are they 'non-human' and therefore huntable? and how do you make that call?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Neoaramia, Neu California, Nu Elysium, Varsemia
Advertisement